I did not know this, it was referenced as an aside in another thread.
My first instinct is that I'm not entirely comfortable taking part if the workers who keep it going are no longer being compensated for their work.
Thread title edited by Catchfire to suppress the revolution.
But it's just an inital reaction, and maybe others have other thoughts. Anyway, worth talking about? Or perhaps I missed the thread where it was announced and discussed.
Pardon?
Yes, some clarification please. Where has this been announced?
Can this be confirmed?
If so it possible for the community to raise funds within Babble specifically to see that they are paid?
The community should not allow this work to be unpaid.
I don't don't believe it's been announced (nor even know if it's true), but it has been referrenced in several threads.
Can this be confirmed?
If so it possible for the community to raise funds within Babble specifically to see that they are paid?
The community should not allow this work to be unpaid.
Let's hold off until; a) this is confirmed, and b) we hear from the mods themeselves. I remember at least one previous well-intentioned but misguided attempt by babblers to advocate on behalf of the mods was not exactly welcomed.
It has been this way for quite some time, as I remember. I thought it was common knowledge.
$15 an hour to take abuse and herd cats that don't want to be herded? As someone (as I am sure many here) who does volunteer work cheerfully because it is worth it, someone I don't think that is the real root problem here - or a solution.
There are plenty who think you can just buy your way out of a problem by paying someone enough to do shit work, rather than looking at a more sensible solution - in this case trying to behave with a bit more decency, consideration for those who have to do that work - so those volunteers feel they aren't just wasting their time, and that their work is appreciated.
My understanding is the same as Smith's, namely that the mods had been volunteer for a while. In any case though, I have noticed the mods being less active of late, though this could just be my perception.
No moderators? Hold on....Douche bag...There I said it...Let's see.
It's not that there's no moderators. There's a question as to whether they're still being paid. In either case, there's no reason to make their roles more difficult than they already are.
Apologies, I omitted a question mark from the title. See other active thread in reactions for where this was reproted as fact.
Or you could just link to it.
Whatever. $15/hour is not volunteer work. Maybe it's part-time or casual or undeclared work -- that's a different issue.
As I understand it they are paid but not 24/7 and this is just one aspect of their duties not their entire job.
I thought they were paid for a modest number of hours per week, 4 or something.
As babble is open for business 168 hours per week, that's pretty modest indeed.
Perhaps babble needs a script, to serve the same purpose as those cardboard cutouts of the police that deter speeders on some U.S. highways. Every hundred posts or so it could pop into a random thread and say "That's enough of that!" or "If this thread doesn't turn itself around I'm closing it!!". Like a fake surveillance camera.
But what if the pee is in the pool now, and we all know we can pretty much do and say whatever we want so long as it doesn't make the top three worst in any four hour week? Will we drift toward Honour System, or Lord of the Flies?
In any case-- I think if there is a reduction in what is being paid that is not acceptable and some way of fixing it is essential.
I am speaking first about people's jobs. Sure, if everything was fine they could work on something else for the site but reducing income and paid hours is something I hope nobody here would want to see... I agree -- it would be good to know what is going on. But we can't very well have a progressive discussion here if we ignore a loss of income to people who are part of the support for the community. So I hope we hear what is going on and if needed respond as a community.
I'll say it again. They are volunteer positions, and have been for quite some time.
CF was the last person who mentioned it, and that was well over a year ago. I'm pretty sure it was in one of the threads where we were ripping the shit out of them for something or other. Kind of funny to see all this care and concern over the thought that they might not be getting paid to put up with it.
(edit)
Just found another reference back from the summer of 2012. I'd post it, but it is kind of a drag to read.
There is a reference to paid moderation in 2010.
Volunteer positions are generally paid $0 per hour, Smith. So which is it? $15/hour (which I think is an underestimate) or $0/hour?
Yes, I think everyone is aware that Babble moderators generally were working more hours than they were paid for. You could call that volunteer, I suppose, or undocumented time. But I have not heard of the positions being downgraded to strictly volunteer positions. And I'm still not clear on why this topic has come up right now.
My understanding is that Catchfire and MegB have always been volunteer moderators.
Michelle was paid back when she was the moderator several years ago. Not sure if Masie and Oldgoat were paid or not.
In any case, this isn't a recent phenomenon.
In any case-- I think if there is a reduction in what is being paid that is not acceptable and some way of fixing it is essential.I am speaking first about people's jobs. Sure, if everything was fine they could work on something else for the site but reducing income and paid hours is something I hope nobody here would want to see... I agree -- it would be good to know what is going on. But we can't very well have a progressive discussion here if we ignore a loss of income to people who are part of the support for the community. So I hope we hear what is going on and if needed respond as a community.
Sean, I agree entirely that the mods should be paid. Nobody here has argued that they shouldn't be.
What I and others are arguing is that the thread title "the moderators have been laid off" is a very out of date statement.
If their moderation time on Babble is volunteer, I think it is in the context of having paid functions elsewhere on Rabble.
I don't think any volunteer mod with such exclusive responsibilities would last as long as these two have. And if the mod functions are strictly volunteer, why has there been no call for turnover since 2010?
Well let's hear from those affected. Are you no longer being paid the measly four hours per week like before? If not, why not?
jas, my understanding was the same as yours... that the mods were being paid, but that they had always voluntarily put in more hours than they were being paid for. I assumed that they were still being paid, but I had definitely noticed they had scaled back their visible role on babble. Over the years, many have clamoured for less moderation, so I figured they had finally decided to give the rabble what they wanted.
This has come up right now because it's been dropped casually as fact into a few different threads. It was mentioned [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/what-liberals-are-missing-when-.... I'm pretty sure I also saw it mentioned a week or two earlier in another thread, but I can't recall which one as it was a complete sidebar to the topic of the thread.
But as I said, it feels a bit premature and strange to be discussing this with zero input from those who are directly involved. I trust that if the mods feel it's any of our business they'll let us know.
I give a monthly donation to Rabble because of Babble. If Babble no longer has remunerated moderators, I may withdraw my financial support.
I give a monthly donation to Rabble because of Babble. If Babble no longer has remunerated moderators, I may withdraw my financial support.
Likewise.
Or... I may try to increase the donation to help solve the problem.
Decisions, decisions, and dialectics.
Volunteer positions are generally paid $0 per hour, Smith. So which is it? $15/hour (which I think is an underestimate) or $0/hour?
I said they are volunteers.
I mentioned $15 an hour because money is being suggested as a solution and I strongly suspect that isn't the real problem. Behaviour is. Lots of us gladly do volunteer work for a good cause. Most of us don't have to put up with regular volleys of shit and people who treat us like we are fascist overlords. And I'm not sure $15 an hour would make it any more worth putting up with that dysfunction.
@ Left Turn
Old Goat stepped down from a paid moderating position in 2010.
Volunteer positions are generally paid $0 per hour, Smith. So which is it? $15/hour (which I think is an underestimate) or $0/hour?
Yes, I think everyone is aware that Babble moderators generally were working more hours than they were paid for. You could call that volunteer, I suppose, or undocumented time. But I have not heard of the positions being downgraded to strictly volunteer positions. And I'm still not clear on why this topic has come up right now.
Because it was news to me, so I thought I would ask the community.
Apologies again for leaving the question mark off the thread title.
Most of us don't have to put up with regular volleys of shit and people who treat us like we are fascist overlords.
You're doing alright then.
There are plenty who think you can just buy your way out of a problem by paying someone enough to do shit work, rather than looking at a more sensible solution - in this case trying to behave with a bit more decency,
Well stop your bloody cursing and swearing then.
Whoa! What! swallow, I am grateful for the sentiment that opened the thread and thank you for looking out for Meg and my wellbeing, but I can assure you that both of us are still being paid the same amount, for four hours a week, as we have been paid for a long time. rabble.ca has a horizontal pay structure so every employee, including the editor-in-chief and the publisher are paid the same hourly wage, although hours per week vary.
I'll admit that I spend most of my time on other parts of the site that I am also paid to look after, so perhaps my lack of presence here has contributed to the above rumour. I'll take this as a suggestion to imrpove this!
ETA. To address the who has been paid, in the past, particularly when rabble.ca first got started, moderators were paid quite a bit 2-3 days, IIRC. That gradually went down but all the mods have always been paid. I'll leave it to them if they wish to disclose how much they were paid (although you can see for yourself in rabble.ca's annual reports)
Thanks for your reply, Catchfire - but despite all your protestations of fair treatment by rabble.ca, I think I'm still going to increase my monthly donation! So there!
Thank you Catchfire. Reported as fact elsewhere on rabble reactions (I'm too lazy to work out how to link specific posts) and indeed in this thread as being common knowledge. I'm delighted to read it's not true. And again apologies for the alarmist thread title which I wish I could edit!
Well, ok, Unionist. If there's one thing many years on this job has taught me, it's that you won't listen to reason. Go ahead and give more money to rabble. It's your funeral.
Heh. No worries swallow. I changed the thread title to keep out the socialist hordes.
Well my mistake then. I guess those references to volunteer moderation are referring to extra hours.
Moderating has never been a volunteer position. We get paid but we also volunteer extra time.
Moderating has never been a volunteer position. We get paid but we also volunteer extra time.
Glad to hear it.
This thread title has an unfortunate truncated version -- read the link
http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/so-moderators-havent-been-laid#new
I doubt I am the only one to see it -- I assume someone else is laughing too.
And I think this is what we are hearing -- they haven't been... nevermind -- pardon the pun.
Well my mistake then. I guess those references to volunteer moderation are referring to extra hours.
Smith, my references to volunteer moderation were to a sincere belief that the moderator position was volunteer, that the paid position had been cut either when Michelle or Oldgoat left the position. Turns out I was wrong.
Apologies to Catchfire and MegB for the confusion.
I was talking abour references to volunteer moderation that I have read a couple of times over the years from the moderators. But it is all straightened out now.
The good news is that even if rabble were to cut the mods down to one hour per week, they still have to pay them for three.
FWIW, and my recent complaints notwithstanding, I think the "less moderation is more" approach is working. I wouldn't know exactly why. Might it have something to do with neutralizing a "treat us like children and we'll act like children" dynamic? I think it encourages more community, as well as individual, self-correction.
My recent complaints though, do raise the issue of moderation, however reduced it is now, being applied transparently and consistently and according to known rules and policies. And I think this at some point does need to be acknowledged, or affirmed, by the mods.
